§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. CLANCEY

Appellant's Answer Brief on the Merits

51 Cited authorities

  1. Missouri v. Frye

    566 U.S. 134 (2012)   Cited 3,802 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant can show prejudice under Strickland even absent a showing that the deficient performance precluded him from going to trial

  2. Bordenkircher v. Hayes

    434 U.S. 357 (1978)   Cited 2,902 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plea bargaining does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination

  3. People v. Superior Court (Romero)

    13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 6,219 times
    Holding that the sentencing court has the power under the Three Strikes Law to dismiss one or more prior “strikes” in the interest of justice

  4. Weatherford v. Bursey

    429 U.S. 545 (1977)   Cited 2,336 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant in a non-capital case has no right to discover lists of prospective government witnesses

  5. United States v. Goodwin

    457 U.S. 368 (1982)   Cited 1,625 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presumption of vindictiveness did not apply when the Government brought a felony indictment after the defendant refused to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges and demanded a jury trial

  6. People v. Scott

    9 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 3,906 times
    Holding that "complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on appeal"

  7. People v. Williams

    17 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 3,123 times
    Holding Romero relief unavailable for a defendant who was 20 years old at the time of the prior strike crimes and 32 years old at the time of the felony triggering the Three Strikes sentence

  8. People v. Correa

    54 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 716 times
    Holding that section 654 does not bar multiple punishment for multiple violations of the same criminal statute and disapproving contrary dictum in Neal v. State of California

  9. Parker v. North Carolina

    397 U.S. 790 (1970)   Cited 647 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding counsel's allegedly mistaken conclusion that defendant's confession was admissible well within range of competence demanded of criminal defense attorney

  10. People v. Jurado

    38 Cal.4th 72 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 649 times
    Finding no error in the admission of testimony concerning relatives' visits to the victim's gravesite

  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer